Mr. Hume's First Speech, on the Third Proposition.
GENTLEMEN MODERATORS: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN --
During the last two days we have been frequently told by the gentleman, that he believed every word in the sacred Scriptures, and that he did not wish to introduce a Scripture to rebut Scripture; that we did not believe all that is said in the Bible, but only such parts thereof as seemed to suit our theory. Now, we would have the gentleman to know, that neither he, or ourself, can produce one portion of Scripture that will contradict nor rebut another, for the Scriptures all harmonize, and all prove the same great truths; and we do verily believe everything therein revealed. But the great difficulty with my friend is, there is no portion of them that proves the doctrine he has here undertaken to defend; hence the very few proof texts introduced by the gentleman during this discussion, and we fear you will find the same deficiency through this debate. The first thing the gentleman said this morning that we thought worthy of note, was another burlesque hurled at us for our opposition, as he said, to the doctrine of good works. We have been informed since we closed last evening, that it was said in this house yesterday, that the good works we believed in, was in ganging around groceries and drinking whiskey. O what a pity that any person should suffer their zeal to lead them so far away from the truth. Now, it is known to the greater portion of this audience, that we have lived near here since 1840, except two years' absence in Kentucky, and we now challenge the world to produce a man that will say that he has ever at any time saw us in, or lurking about a grocery or retail liquor shop; and we also challenge any man to point to the time and place, when he ever saw us in the least disguised with intoxicating drinks of any kind. Every lady and gentleman in and around Mt. Vernon, knows well that the charge is slanderously false.
We now remark, and we challenge contradiction from any man, that if all men would pursue the same course that we do, there would not be retail liquor shop or a drunken man in the state of Indiana, or in the world. We are truly sorry that circumstances have made it necessary for us to deviate from the subject matter of debate, but we are fully prepared to meet the enemy at every point, and we intend to do it. Now it is known to you, my audience, that we have already given our views at some length upon the subject of good works. You know also that we advocate strenuously the doctrine of good works, but we wish to put them in their proper place and enjoin their observance upon the proper class of people; hence the language of one item of our articles of faith, which reads thus: "We believe that good works are the fruits of the faith of God's elect, and follow after they are born of the spirit of God." This is what we believe upon this subject.
But no doubt the gentleman would be much pleased if he could prevail upon us to occupy all our time upon this subject. This, however, he cannot do. We intend to follow him closely on the present proposition, for we are aware that here is, as he supposes, his strong fort. We intend, however, to drive him from his stronghold, show you his lurking places, fire his cob house, burn up his nest, and leave him without even a shadow of foundation to set his foot upon before we get through with this proposition, the doctrine of which involves considerations of the most important character. We are now engaged in discussing the great principle, upon which the sins of the rebellious are pardoned or forgiven. Well, surely there could not be a more important subject introduced for your consideration, or one upon which you should more sincerely desire to know the truth. My friend has undertaken to prove that baptism or immersion is for the remission or forgiveness of past sins; that is to say, all sins up to the time of baptism. Now we have one question to settle here before we proceed, and that is, we wish to know what idea the gentleman intends to convey by the word "for remission," whether he means because of, or in order to. We hope he will explain himself upon this subject. Will you be so kind, sir, as to tell us how you wish to be understood here? Thank you, sir. He says he understands the word "for" in the proposition, to mean "in order to." Well, this is just what we supposed, but we wished to have it directly from himself, in order that we might know against what we were contending. Now we wish it distinctly understood, that we demur against the whole theory taught in the language of the present proposition, for reasons that we will now attempt to show. We wish you to remember, however, that every point introduced in this discussion must, according to our rules, be proved from the sacred Scriptures, as we have them revealed in our common, or King James version of the Bible. Now, if my friend fails to prove by plain pointed language of the Bible, that immersion is in order to the forgiveness of past sins, then he fails to sustain the affirmative of the present proposition. Well, my friends, he must and will forever fail, for there is not one text in all the book of God, that teaches this doctrine. We intend to show you, God being our helper, that the pardon of sins that are past, as well as those that are to come, flows to sinners upon very different principles, and does not depend either in whole or in part upon the act of immersion. We object to the doctrine of the proposition, first, because it contradicts God's holy word; secondly, because it destroys the efficacy of the blood of Christ; thirdly, because it damns all who are not baptized. These points we shall attend to, perhaps blended together, as we progress with the discussion. We wish you to remember distinctly, that the gentleman has already admitted three very important items in our favor. The first was, tht baptism does not always mean immersion in water, but sometimes means an overwhelming in trouble and sorrow. To use his own language, the audience might be overwhelmed or baptized in smoke. Well, this is all true, but a very fatal admission for my friend, as he will see before we are done with the subject. The next admission was, that there was no remission of sins only through the name of Christ. His third admission was that there was no remission of sins only through the blood of Christ.
Here, then, according to the gentleman's own showing, we have three channels differing widely in their nature and design, through which the grace of pardon is extended, to wit: the name of Christ, the blood of Christ, and water baptism. Well, it is one thing to positively affirm a proposition, but it is a very different thing to prove it. The gentleman has affirmed the three positions above named, but he has not yet proved them, neither will he until he gets a new translation. He will surely find ample room here for a full display of his learning and talents, and all the logic he can summon to his aid, Hedge's not excepted, and will even then fail to convince this audience that such a mass of contradictions are true, or in harmony with the Holy Scriptures. The gentleman told us that there was a data by which all men could tell precisely when they entered the kingdom of Christ, and that was when the were baptized into the name of Christ, and that there is no salvation out of this kingdom. Hence the argument of my worthy friend ran thus: that in order to get the benefit of the name and blood of Christ, we must come into the kingdom of Christ, which we can only do by being immersed into it.
Now, my audience, the gentleman has fully revealed himself. He is simply an advocate for the doctrine of salvation, through or by the water; for, says he, we cannot get into the name or receive the benefits of the blood of Christ outside of the kingdom of Christ; and we cannot get into the kingdom only by being baptized. We have often heard of this watery path to the celestial city; but Elder Franklin, is the first man we ever heard publickly advocate the doctrine, that without immersion there is no salvation. But the gentleman thinks we refer too often to the doctrine of the Regular Baptists. Well, when he will let us alone, or tell the truth about our doctrine, we will stop, and not till then, for we intend to follow him into all the dark places where he tries to conceal himself. The gentleman told us that all spiritual blessings were treasured in Christ. Well, this is true; but if he had read the connection in which this remark is found, it would have given much light on the subject. Paul say, "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ, according as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world." Well, what was the object of Jehovah, in thus blessing the saints at Ephesus and the faithful in Christ, with all spiritual blessings in Christ, and choosing them in Him before the world began. Evidently it was, as the Apostle says, "That they should be holy, and without blame before him in love." Now, if sinners were blessed with all spiritual blessings in Christ, before the world began, was not forgiveness or pardon one of those blessings? Surely my friend will not deny it; and if this be true, surely pardon does not come through the water, but through the blood of Jesus Christ, as declared by the Apostle in the 7th verse of the 1st chapter of Ephesians, which reads, "In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins," &c. The Apostle also remarks, in second Timothy, chapter 1, verse 9, "Who hath saved us and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace which was given us in Christ Jesus, before the world began." Now mark, the text does not say given to Christ for us, but given us in Christ before the world began; hence it is evident that the great work of man's salvation was all arranged, settled, and prematurely fixed before the world began; that they were there blessed with all spiritual blessings in Christ, and that grace was given them there, which secured a glorious manifestation of pardon to all the heirs of promise in due time, through the blood of the new and everlasting covenant, that was ordered in all things and sure.
But the gentleman assumes another very strange position indeed, and that is, he says a man may be changed in heart and character, and not be a saint. Hence, said he, baptism to a man that is not changed in heart and character, is worth nothing or indeed useless. Hence, my audience, you can get a glimpse at the gentleman's beautiful consistency. The sinner may be so effectually wrought upon by divine power as to produce an entire change of heart, so that he now loves the Lord with his whole heart, hates and abhors sin so much that it produces an entire change in his character or course of moral conduct, and yet not be a saint of God. Why, what is wanting? Oh, he must put on the finishing touch himself. And what is that? Why, he must be immersed, or farewell heaven to him. Well, my friends, where do you suppose our friend will put the poor fellow. Surely he cannot go down to hell. Oh, no; he hates sin, he loves God, he walks humbly before Him, and as such he cannot possibly go to the bad place; and he cannot go to heaven, because he has not been baptized. We suppose our friend has to endorse Roman Catholicism at least for present convenience, and stow the poor fellow away in purgatory awhile; and if they have no water there to baptize him in, of course he must remain there. Now, if we cannot find more consistency and good sense in the swamps of Indiana, among the blue-stocking Baptists than this, we are greatly mistaken. My dear friends, is it not awful to think where a false zeal will sometimes lead smart men. You see however what it has done in the case now before us.
The gentleman next tells us that we must be a member of the body of Christ, or we never can be saved. Well, this is also true; we are glad that our friend occasionally acknowledges the truth. We have been told again and again, that there was no salvation outside the kingdom of Christ. We are now told there is no salvation outside of the body of Christ. We suppose we will next hear that there is no salvation out of the Church of Christ. Well, we suppose that by the terms kingdom, body, and church, the gentleman means precisely the same thing. If he does, then we are together upon this subject, so far as visibility is concerned, but we differ widely with regard to none being saved, but such as are in the kingdom or church visibly; and we differ just as widely with regard to the manner in which persons are inducted into the mystical body of Christ. Now, the learned gentleman has, time and again, declared in your hearing that there is no means by which we can possibly get into the kingdom, name, or body of Christ, only by being baptized or immersed into them. Well, he has also told us that this immersion is nothing more or less, than an overwhelming of the individual in water; and when we are thus baptized into the name of Christ, the kingdom or body of Christ, we there find the blood of Christ, which cleanseth from all sin. Now if these things are true, surely we ought to know it, for much depends upon a correct knowledge of the medium through which sins are pardoned. But if they are not true, we should shun them as we would the deadly poison. Well, all that is necessary to prove to you that this whole theory is false, is for us to open our battery, and let loose upon this building of trash, the cannon of God's holy word, charged with eternal truth, which is a sharp two-edged sword and cuts every way; and if our friend does not feel the effects, it will evidently be because he is wholly destitute of feeling.
We now invite your attention to the language of the Apostle, recorded in First Corinthians, chapter 12, verses 12, 13, which reads, "For as the body is one and hath many members, and all the members of that one body being many are one body, so also is Christ, for by one spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free, and have been all made to drink into one spirit." Now you see my friends that after all the gentleman's loud boasting about his method of getting into the body of Christ, and the impregnable superstructure that he has reared for its defense, one single discharge from Heaven's artillery demolishes the whole, and so completely unmasks the gentleman's theory, that every intelligent lady and gentleman here must see its deformity. The Apostle tells us in the quotation above, that there are many members in the body of Christ, and yet but one body; and he clearly defines the manner of entrance into that, and it matters not what the condition in life may be, whether Jews or Gentiles, bond or free. There is but the one way of getting into that one body, and that way is very different from the course pointed out by Mr. Franklin. Hence the Apostle says "for by one spirit are we all baptized into one body." Here, then, we have the views of the Apostle as to the manner of getting into the body of Christ, and it must be admitted that the Apostle understood well what he said, and could not possibly be mistaken upon the subject. But the gentleman urges the propriety of baptizing into the name of Christ, and quotes the language of the Apostle where he says, "for as many of us as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ," and he tells you that we are not in company with the Apostle. Well, we are in company with the Savior in the great commission, for he says, "baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son," &c. Hence, Jesus commanded them to baptize in his name and not into the name. Here, all that has been said about baptizing into the name, has been a perfect quibble and nothing else. But we are told that there is no such thing as the influence of the spirit outside of the body of Christ. Now, if this be true, we would inquire by what influence are men lead into the body of Christ. Does the wisdom of this world direct men thither? Does the carnal mind of the ungodly lead them to the kingdom of Jesus Christ? Surely not; the Savior says "except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." My friend says no man is born again until he is immersed. Now if this be true, and he cannot see the kingdom until he is born again, what are the facts in the case? Why, it is evident that they go into the kingdom blind; and if there is no influence of the spirit outside the kingdom or body of Christ, how o those that are blind find the way? Here is a puzzle for the gentleman. We hope he will attend to it in his next speech, for sure it is there needs some explanation on this subject. The gentleman has at last found one connection of Scripture, as he supposes, in the second chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, 37th, 38, 39th, 40th, and 41st verses, that will sustain his theory. Well, we will attend to this connection in due time, for we have nothing to fear from any thing that is found in the Bible. We have now driven the gentleman to his great rallying place, the connection upon which he principally relies for success upon the present proposition. Well, we shall be mistaken if the gentleman is not as anxious to get away from the second of Acts as he has been to get to it. We will now read the connection; beginning at the 37th verse: "Now when they heard this they were pricked in their heart,and said unto Peter and to the rest of the Apostles, men and brethren what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, for the promise is unto you and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as any as the Lord our God shall call. Then they that gladly received his word were baptized," &c. Now, before we proceed further, we would just remark that if we were surrounded with the same circumstances that Peter was, we would try to teach just as Peter did. Let it now be distinctly understood, and it should never be forgotten, that the characters addressed by Peter were pierced in the heart, and so powerfully were they wrought upon that they were made to cry out. Just let us now step back a little, and inquire if there is no influence of the Holy Spirit outside of the kingdom or body of Christ, what was it that made this vast multitude cry out so earnestly, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Now it must be evident to all candid minds, that those persons were truly convicted for sin: had a discovery of their awful and justly condemned state as rebels against God; beheld his awful justice about to be executed upon them as violators of his holy law. Now in view of all these things, they were made to cry out, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" The Apostle very justly informs them. He says in answer to their enquiry, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." Here we shall have use for the gentleman's definition of the word "for"; he says it means in order to. Now we deny this being the true meaning of the word, for in this text it may be rendered in order to in some cases, but most generally it is to be understood to mean, because, because of, or in consideration of. Now, we take the ground, that for in this place simply means because of. Now, any substitute that will give the same idea or make as good sense as the original word, is a good substitute; but if it does not convey the same idea, or make good sense, then the word substituted will not do. We will now introduce a few examples. It is said in the Scriptures "who was delivered for our offences." Now let us read the text according to Mr. Franklin's theory, and it would read thus, "who was delivered in order to our offences." Now you all know this would not do. Well, let us now substitute because of and it would then read, "who was delivered because of our offences." This substitute conveys precisely the same sense that the original word for does. Hence it is a good substitute in this place, but again it is said, "for we have not followed cunningly devised fables." How would this look to read "in order to we have not followed," &c. Now all present are ready to say, it looks very bad indeed. Well, just substitute because, and you have precisely the same sense. We will introduce one more which will serve for the present. It is said in the new covenant, "for all shall know me from the least to the greatest." Let us now read to suit Mr. Franklin, "in order to all shall know me," &c. Now it must be evident to all present that such a substitute will not do. Well, let us read the text with our substitute and we will have good sense at least, "because all shall know me from the least to the gretest," &c. You, my audience, can examine this subject more fully at your leisure, and the more you examine it, the more thoroughly you will be convinced that for must frequently mean because or because of. Then we have the gentleman's strong text explained upon common sense principles, by which we show you that Elder Franklin has no proof for his theory in this text. But again mark the language used by the Apostle in the 41st verse, "then they that gladly received his word were baptized," &c. Now what do you suppose, my audience, was the cause of the great rejoicing among these people who had been pierced in the heart? We naturally suppose that their rejoicing grew out of an evidence of pardoned sins, for we know of nothing else that would have been likely to have produced it. We wish you to remember particularly these three important facts: first, the people addressed by Peter were pierced in the heart; secondly, the word for in the text means because of; thirdly those pierced in the heart were made to rejoice, and surely there is nothing that would be more likely to cause them to rejoice than a manifestation of pardoned sins through the merits and blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Hence, with this view of the subject, you see, my audience, that the gentleman's strong hold is broken up, and he completely dislodged from his resting place, and as such he must seek for proof to sustain himself somewhere else, for sure it is he has none in this connection. But the gentleman seemed to possess some foreknowledge, or at least was possessed of the spirit of prophecy, for he told us during his speech this morning, that we would have to offer an apology to this audience for our entire failure to day. But we think the gentleman is a false prophet, for we have no apology to offer, for we have made no failure, neither will we fail to chase our friend sufficiently close for his convenience to the close of this discussion. He has discovered the error of his views in a former speech, and comes out and says that he never said the sinner's regeneration was in his own hands. Now, we appeal to this audience to know if the gentleman did not say that God had given every man power to be regenerated, and if we ever reached the fair climes of immortal felicity, we had to work for it. No doubt the gentleman would be glad if he had those remarks back again; but he supposed he had such a mass of ignorance to contend with, that every departure from the principles of common sense and the Bible would be passed unnoticed, but he has found himself so much mistaken that it renders him very uneasy. We now inquire of you, my audience, what passage of Scripture has the gentleman introduced to prove that baptism is in order to the forgiveness of sins. Not one. Well, he has promised to prove this point, and to prove it by the sacred Scriptures as taught in our common version of the Bible, and for that purpose he has referred us to the second chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, which no doubt comes as near proving his proposition as any he can find. Well, in that whole chapter there is not one word said about baptism in order to the forgiveness of sins; and we will tell you now, as we have before told you, that he never will find one text in all the book of God, which will prove the doctrine of baptism in order to the forgiveness of sins. It is not only true that the gentleman is out of Scripture proof, but it is also true that he is out of argument. This is evident from the fact that he has introduced the same argument twice in his first speech; he now tells the second time that a man may be changed in heart and in character, and yet if he is not baptized he cannot be saved. Well, we will venture to prophesy that he will not introduce this argument again, for by the time he gets this man, who is changed in heart and character, stowed away in another world, he will be willing to drop the subject, for we have already shown you that according to our friend's theory, he can neither go to happiness or misery, but must necessarily stop in the Romans' purgatory, and if he cannot meet with an opportunity to be baptized in that country, there he must stay. We hope the gentleman will fix this up in his next speech, and be very particular in defining what kind of society such a man would be adapted to, for he can no longer live in and enjoy the society of the wicked, and he cannot be admitted into the company of the saints, simply because he has not been baptized.
We now ask, if the gentleman's theory be true, what becomes of all such as are so situated that they cannot possibly be baptized. Have we not good reason to believe that thousands are brought to repentance and the knowledge of the truth upon their death beds, many of whom greatly desire to be baptized, but their peculiar situation forbids it and renders it perfectly impossible; and because they cannot, notwithstanding they sincerely desire to be baptized, they must perish forever. Now, my dear audience, can you possibly persuade yourselves to believe that a God of strict justice would act thus with his creatures? Surely if they really do desire to be baptized, the desire is a good one, and came from God. Then He has given the desire, and yet renders it perfectly impossible to gratify that desire, and damns the sinner because he does not comply. But this is not all; have we not reason also to believe that there are multiplied thousands of the human race, both in the lands of Christendom as well as in Heathen countries, who are brought to a knowledge of the truth, in various and numerous corners of the earth, who have no opportunity whatever to receive the ordinance of baptism, and because they cannot, they must also be damned forever.
O, what a God-dishonoring doctrine, how the soul sickens at the very thought! God has appointed the bounds of the habitation of men; he has in his providence placed a very large portion of his creatures in countries far remote from the preached gospel; they are so situated that they have not the written word of the Lord, while there are millions of them who could neither read or understand it if they had it; they have never heard of the glorious Jesus either through the preached gospel or written word; nay more, they have never so much as heard of the organization of the gospel kingdom or Church of God upon earth. Neither have they ever heard of the holy ordinances of the gospel given to and enjoined upon his church, but are perfectly ignorant of the whole system, because God in his providence has so situated them that they cannot be benefited by the gospel or written word; and yet, strange to tell, Oh, publish it not among men, that we have those among us, in this nineteenth century, who stand up in the sanctuary of God (as he is pleased to call it) and proclaim that the very God who has so situated this portion of the race, will now damn the whole of them for not doing what he has put entirely out of their power to do. Now, the gentleman has been boasting of his exalted views of the goodness and mercy of God, and of his great love to the race, and now after all, he tells you in plain words, God has withheld the blessing of the gospel and written word from far the largest portion of the race, and then damns them because they do not do what the gospel enjoins. May heaven save me from a system that thus dishonors the God of the Bible, destroys the efficacy of the blood of Christ, and sends millions to hell every year for not doing what God has put out of their power to do. I am sure this intelligent audience will not receive as true such a system as this; one that is fraught with so much evil to the race and reflects so much dishonor upon the character of the great God. But my worthy friend is not yet satisfied with the second of Acts. He tells us that he has at home eight different translations of the Bible, and they all agree with his views on the second chapter of Acts. He also has told us that his views are right according to the Greek lexicons. Well, this may be true or it may not; there are but few here who know any thing about Greek, and we seriously doubt our friend's knowledge of it. But be this as it may, we have shown you the plain common sense view of the subject, and we have given you several examples by which you are able to determine for yourselves whether Mr. Franklin or ourself is right upon the subject.
It matters not with us if our friend had sixteen translations, and twenty-four Greek lexicons, backed by all the logic he can raise, even Mr. Hedge's, not excepted, and after all he will never make this audience believe the doctrine of baptism in order to the forgiveness of sins. But the gentleman was made to wonder if it could be possible that we would take the position that sins were pardoned before repentance, and even challenged us to admit the position. Well, for the gentleman's special accommodation, and because we verily believe the doctrine, we now affirm that the pardon of the sins of God's people precedes their repentance. Hence the language of Jehovah to the Prophet Isaiah, 40th chapter, "comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God, speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, cry unto her that her warfare is accomplished, her iniquity is pardoned," &c., in the present tense. But, says the Apostle Peter, when speaking of the sufferings of Jesus, "He himself bare our sins in his own body on the tree." Now what good did bearing our sins do if he did not bear them away, and surely if he bore them away they are not charged to us, and as such they are forgiven.
But what saith the Lord by his servant Daniel? Hear him: "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sin," &c. Now if sin was then ended, so far as God's people were concerned, it was no longer charged to them; and, consequently, was pardoned. Well how were they pardoned? in or by immersion? Not so; but by the blood of Christ! Hence, the language of the Apostle, "The blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, cleanseth us from all sin." Not one word here about baptism, in order to the forgiveness of sins. Now be it remembered, that we do verily believe in baptism for the remission of sins; but we deny the doctrine of baptism in order to the forgiveness of sins. There is one thing the people should bear in mind, and that is the proof of the present proposition devolves upon my friend, Mr. Franklin, while all that we have to do, is to deny. Well, our friend has occupied one hour, and you will see, he will continue to fail, for the very best of reasons, because there is not one text in the Bible that speaks of baptism in order to the forgiveness of sins. We have proven by the Scriptures of eternal truth, that the pardon of sins is in, by, or through the blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ; and through this medium and this alone, is the pardon of sins made manifest. Well, we have also proven, by the admission of our friend, that sins are pardoned through the blood of Christ; and surely the Bible and Mr. Franklin are not both wrong on this subject. We now remark, that our sins were pardoned before we believed it, or, we believed a lie when we did believe it; and, if pardoned before we believed it, how long before? Here my friend will fail again, for he will never answer this question. Well, all true saints profess faith in Christ, and to have received an evidence of the pardon of their sins before baptism. Well, all those have been led to believe a lie, or Mr. Franklin is evidently wrong. Well, we cannot possibly admit that so many thousand saints have been deceived upon this subject. We now remark, in conclusion, that the act of pardon is one thing, and the manifestation of pardon is another - and the act of pardon always precedes its manifestation. Hence we maintain, that sins are pardoned by virtue of the blood of Christ, which pardon is manifested, revealed, or made known by the Holy Scripture, the work of regeneration; hence the language of the Apostle: "Without the shedding of blood there is no remission." Now, had the Apostle said, without an immersion in water there is no remission, then my friend would be right; but as it is, he is evidently wrong, for sins are pardoned through the blood of Christ, and not through the water. Therefore, baptism in order to the remission of sins, is not taught in the Bible.
Time expired.
